kura_connect_cloud

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether a network connection is established, authentication requirements, or what happens if the connection already exists. The tool appears to be a mutating operation, but no behavioral details are shared.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide any meaningful information beyond the tool name. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool performs a connection action that likely has side effects and requires context. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of expected behavior, return values, or errors. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with this level of complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions already cover both parameters ('pid' and 'instance') at 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Connect a cloud connection' essentially restates the tool name 'kura_connect_cloud' using the same verb and noun. It lacks specificity about what connecting a cloud connection entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like kura_disconnect_cloud or kura_get_cloud_connections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions is provided. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.